A Spirited Dirty Dozen ...

[yeti]

I have only one thing to add to this neverending debate that alway irks me every time it is repeated (thanks for that @WDW1974 ).

Every single person wants Star Wars part of the third park. People who are for it, people who are against it (in DL at least). Because everyone would rather a 4 billion dollar third park, obviously.

It's like getting a car for your 16th birthday and whining it isn't a plane. Yes, everyone wants a damn plane, Disney could even afford the plane for your 16th birthday. But the fact we didn't get a plane doesn't factor into the conversation about whether the type of car we got is appropriate or a piece of junk. Can we please keep the debate focused on the car instead of the plane? We don't even have a pilots license...

The bone of contention is the placement of the land, not the substance.

 

[Cesar R M]

This is from a Creative Director at Pixar's theme park division.

I wonder how many times persons like her was overriden because some higher exec wanted "more cheap stuff that sells fast".

 

[Cesar R M]

Yes, for the vast majority of the public, nearly identical lands *is* a good thing. A great thing even. An *expected* thing.

The vast majority of guests at WDW are never going to experience Disneyland. Star Wars specifically is going to attract an amount of guests heretofore unseen in theme park demand, even beyond Potter.

For marketing and customer satisfaction, it is imperative that both resorts be able to offer the "Star Wars experience" in the same way. No one wants to be told "that's at the other park, 3,000 miles away" when it comes to Star Wars. And that includes this new planet, which we have been led to believe will play some part in the Star Wars universe in the future (film or otherwise).

While it seems "easy" to just come up with another new planet for the opposite coast, clearly the Lucasfilm story department has a hand in this and there is a lot more planned for the location to be relevant in the future. Clearly there is a greater purpose to it beyond what we know now, and the only ones who would care about them being different for the "principle" of the thing are those obsessive crazies like us on a message board.

Making things different could push the visitors to visit more than one park.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Disneyland was always a vehicle to drive advertising for both Disney's brands and its sponsors. It's been that way from it's very inception. Where else do you think the theme park industry learned this?

An advertisement has to actually advertise something. Disneyland was its own product. It being an advertisement just means any film is an advertisement for its studio or a novel is just an advertisement for its author.

This is not the correct way to think of it. Since Lucas and Eisner collaborated back in the 80's (and even before then as the demand for SW in Disney can be traced back to 1977), more Star Wars in Disney has always been what Guests have demanded. More SW would've come sooner had the Eisner/Lucas relationship not soured. While Iger would like to pat himself on the back about planting the seed of the sale in George's head, the truth is that Lucasfilm>Disney was something that was always stewing as George thought about retirement. I first heard of this during the filming of Episode III, so it was at least a "spark" of imagination all the way back in 2003-4. As soon as talks of the merger began, the wheels of developing more SW for the Parks began in earnest. It was only a question of when and where it would come and in what form.

Guest demand never moved anything forward.

Simply false. SWL from the ground up was always a DL project, simply because nobody wanted to wait for Orlando. In all three forms of its development, it was first and foremost designed to fit into DL and no real concessions were made to fit it in Florida (other than the 3rd attraction getting yanked because TDO is too cheap to pay for it). The first form for SWL was going to land right on top of a good portion of Tomorrowland and it was going to be a "Greatest Hits" tour of the SW galaxy. Nobody wanted this option. The 2nd version was the Toontown overlay and it was really close to being approved when the 3rd more elaborate option was finally settled on for it to reside where it is currently. When this move took place, it was the needs of Disneyland that took the only priority. Everything about this new space had to accommodate it's placement within DL. The very planet that this spaceport occupies is engineered to fit behind Rivers of America and blend in with Thunder's spires. SWL's placement in the swamps of DHS weren't even locked down until well after DL was already in motion. So, in essence, SWL's needs for Orlando weren't really factored into the design. Actually, one of the reasons I've heard with move from Echo Lake to the backlot were to make DL's design better fit into DHS as it's easier to hide the massive show buildings from the park entrance. Plus, this approach is ultimately cheaper/faster as getting SWL online won't require a massive parking project to be completed.

Being started as a Disneyland project does not fix how the project has progressed.

This last statement is very debatable. One does like to think of the Weatherman as being vain enough to want to plant the flag on the pinnacle of the SW mountain and lay claim that he delivered the nerds thorough the desert of Tatooine and reached the promised land of finally having more SW in the Parks. But, I think history will prove that his subordinates may have under minded his aspirations as best they could. I've mentioned time and again that most everyone involved in this project knew that putting SW into DL wasn't the right place to do it. It would've been far better suited as an anchor for the 3rd gate (I still think it will ultimately reside there as well). Unfortunately, waiting until that happens simply wasn't possible. Bob wants it done and as I've mentioned, the Guests have long wanted it. If you are wondering why DCA wasn't an option for SW to land there - it potentially could have; but, never was in serious discussion because if SW went to DCA, then Marvel would've come to DL and that would've been an even worse fit. So, faced with choices of making the square peg of SW fit in the round Death Star hole of DL - the Imagineers started to try to steer the project somewhere it would've had the least amount of impact... outside the berm.

Knowing how to stroke an ego is a skill required in such fields and doubly important when your boss has utter contempt for the field.

So, with everything that could've gone wrong with this bitter pill. Where SWL ended up in DL is going to be done in the least impactful way. It doesn't change the fact that it didn't belong there to begin with and we are losing some of the length and isolation of the RoA; but, it does have a great number of positive impacts that it's opening will bring to the table:

Ultimately the big problem all comes down this, the continued acceptance of an incredibly broken process because it spits out isolated niceties. "It's the best of a bad situation" is not a cause for celebration, it is still a bad situation.

I guess the thing is this; it shouldn't matter if you are a SW fan or not. The new area will be extremely immersive with 2 E ticket attractions, in addition to dining and shopping. Just like all of the complaints with Pandora and the movie over at AK. It doesn't matter what happens with any new movie or if people even care about the original movie. The land will stand on it's own as an immersive experience.

Disney's decision making process is entirely built around supporting film franchises. That means the films being liked is absolutely central.

Yes, for the vast majority of the public, nearly identical lands *is* a good thing. A great thing even. An *expected* thing.

The vast majority of guests at WDW are never going to experience Disneyland. Star Wars specifically is going to attract an amount of guests heretofore unseen in theme park demand, even beyond Potter.

For marketing and customer satisfaction, it is imperative that both resorts be able to offer the "Star Wars experience" in the same way. No one wants to be told "that's at the other park, 3,000 miles away" when it comes to Star Wars. And that includes this new planet, which we have been led to believe will play some part in the Star Wars universe in the future (film or otherwise).

While it seems "easy" to just come up with another new planet for the opposite coast, clearly the Lucasfilm story department has a hand in this and there is a lot more planned for the location to be relevant in the future. Clearly there is a greater purpose to it beyond what we know now, and the only ones who would care about them being different for the "principle" of the thing are those obsessive crazies like us on a message board.

Related experiences should be a given. Aiming to draw once and build twice is something different.

 

[DDLand]

It's like getting a car for your 16th birthday and whining it isn't a plane. Yes, everyone wants a damn plane, Disney could even afford the plane for your 16th birthday. But the fact we didn't get a plane doesn't factor into the conversation about whether the type of car we got is appropriate or a piece of junk. Can we please keep the debate focused on the car instead of the plane? We don't even have a pilots license...

Almost...

It's like getting a really really nice car and instead of parking it in the garage, your parents proceed to drive it into your room.

Sure the car is nice, but you now have a a hole in the wall and damage to something you care about. One step forward, two steps back?

Or something like that...

 

[BrianLo]

The bone of contention is the placement of the land, not the substance.

Yes, exactly my point. By making it part of a, 'why can't they put it in a third park', you also gain substance in the equation. A third park implies added content beyond Star Wars that does not simply exist at this point.

If a third park was under development and they chose to not include it in said third park, then yes the issue would only be about placement. The third park is however not in active development, outside of blue sky wishes.

The options today are Disneyland, DCA or not at all (for a decade at least). It's nice to prefer a third park, but that's a whole separate issue from SWL not belonging in DL.

 

[thehowiet]

And what they all need to remember - IT'S JUST A THEME PARK FOR GOODNESS SAKE.

Says the person who has posted 4,000+ messages on a website dedicated to theme parks

In all seriousness though, I think it mostly comes down to a difference of philosophy with regard to the inclusion of single IP lands into a park made up of lands with more broad and encompassing themes. Some disagree with Star Wars going into Disneyland and you're not one of them. That's ok. What I am having a hard time comprehending is why someone would bother to solicit the opinions of others only to explain to them why those opinions are wrong when they don't align with theirs, even going as far as referring to them as naysayers. But what the heck do I know, I spend most of my money and free time following some hippie band all over the country and visiting theme parks, so I'm willing to concede that I may be a little "off"

 

[DDLand]

And what they all need to remember - IT'S JUST A THEME PARK FOR GOODNESS SAKE.

I actually take some issue with this...

Disneyland isn't just "a theme park." It is the theme park. It invented and pioneered the entire genre. It was the park that created, through trial and error, the most successful theme park design ever. Even 61 years later, Disney is opening parks in the tradition of Disneyland.

It's the result of thousands of cast members and Imagineers putting on the longest running show I'm aware of.

It's an American Classic that means something to tens of millions of people (including me).

It's also being upended by Rey and Finn from 2015. 61 years of illustrious history ignored for the latest franchise.

So you have to understand the intense feelings people have for Disneyland. It's special.

 

[yeti]

Yes, exactly my point. By making it part of a, 'why can't they put it in a third park', you also gain substance in the equation. A third park implies added content beyond Star Wars that does not simply exist at this point.

If a third park was under development and they chose to not include it in said third park, then yes the issue would only be about placement. The third park is however not in active development, outside of blue sky wishes.

The options today are Disneyland, DCA or not at all (for a decade at least). It's nice to prefer a third park, but that's a whole separate issue from SWL not belonging in DL.

Some would argue it should have been in active development, right after the Lucasfilm acquisition in 2012. Instead Disney toyed with lacklustre concepts for a year to beat around the bush that, thematically and stylistically, it's a loose fit for the park. I don't see why designing a new park would be so far-fetched really. The parks are congested, the land is earmarked for it...if they broke ground within the past two years it could have opened in the 2018-20 time frame. A little fast but, stranger things...

I don't know if the thought ever occurred to them, however, so it's hard to complain that Disneyland is receiving its first substantial addition since 1995. In fact it would be disingenuous of me to care at all since I barely ever experienced these particular Rivers of America. But I can understand where people are coming from. And I'm afraid removing chunks of park history sets a bad precedent for what they can get away with in the future.

 

[AEfx]

In fact it would be disingenuous of me to care at all since I barely ever experienced these particular Rivers of America. But I can understand where people are coming from. And I'm afraid removing chunks of park history sets a bad precedent for what they can get away with in the future.

And that's the great lie here.

What is being "lost" is a bunch of unused nothingness that most people will never even miss. You are being told some mass of historic nothingness was somehow sacred property. If Walt had lived, that area wouldn't have survived the 1960's. Most of the actual area wasn't even guest accessible. Great care is also being taken to visually divide the area.

It's like arguing about an outhouse in the back of a property being sacred because George Washington once took a dump there. The main house is fine, the property still dedicated to him - but there comes a certain point where one has to be reasonable, particularly when the person in question was so forward thinking to begin with.

 

[AEfx]

Making things different could push the visitors to visit more than one park.

Not enough to make it worth it for them, with all the negatives that would entail; as I said, the ones that would be enticed and that committed already are going to be visiting, chasing Celebration and D23 across both coasts.

 

[yeti]

And that's the great lie here.

What is being "lost" is a bunch of unused nothingness that most people will never even miss. You are being told some mass of historic nothingness was somehow sacred property. If Walt had lived, that area wouldn't have survived the 1960's. Most of the actual area wasn't even guest accessible. Great care is also being taken to visually divide the area.

It's like arguing about an outhouse in the back of a property being sacred because George Washington once took a dump there. The main house is fine, the property still dedicated to him - but there comes a certain point where one has to be reasonable, particularly when the person in question was so forward thinking to begin with.

About a third of the Rivers of America is being removed, one of Disneyland's most distinctive features. It's a notch below draining it and paving the whole thing over...not as bad, but still bad. Walt would never have touched it. It's the most significant upheaval of his "show" in the history of the park....except for maybe New Fantasyland, but who's gonna complain about that?

The train and riverboat conveyed an experience of passing through dense woods, past a few clever Marc Davis/Ken Anderson sight gags. It was simple, but it was something...it wasn't nothing. Would you demolish a portion of the Jungle Cruise for a new Indiana Jones ride? I'm not a Jungle Cruise fan, so I wouldn't care, but I could understand why some people would.

I think your description would be more apt if we were only talking about the expansion pad north of Frontierland, where Discovery Bay was once going.

 

[culturenthrills]

Love the how DARE you close the parks attitude being shown, I think Disney Ops made the right calls in closing when they did because Matthew was a extremely unpredictable storm. The overpriced hurricane boxes well NOT GOOD, I could see those being comped or a couple of bucks but 12.99...

They should have not been more than $4.99. $12.99 was ridiculous.

 

[GiveMeTheMusic]

About a third of the Rivers of America is being removed, one of Disneyland's most distinctive features. It's a notch below draining it and paving the whole thing over...not as bad, but still bad. Walt would never have touched it. It's the most significant upheaval of his "show" in the history of the park....except for maybe New Fantasyland, but who's gonna complain about that?

The train and riverboat conveyed an experience of passing through dense woods, past a few clever Marc Davis/Ken Anderson sight gags. It was simple, but it was something...it wasn't nothing. Would you demolish a portion of the Jungle Cruise for a new Indiana Jones ride? I'm not a Jungle Cruise fan, so I wouldn't care, but I could understand why some people would.

I think your description would be more apt if we were only talking about the expansion pad north of Frontierland, where Discovery Bay was once going.

You know they did shorten the jungle river for Indy right?

 

[choco choco]

And that's the great lie here.

What is being "lost" is a bunch of unused nothingness that most people will never even miss. You are being told some mass of historic nothingness was somehow sacred property. If Walt had lived, that area wouldn't have survived the 1960's. Most of the actual area wasn't even guest accessible. Great care is also being taken to visually divide the area.

It's like arguing about an outhouse in the back of a property being sacred because George Washington once took a dump there. The main house is fine, the property still dedicated to him - but there comes a certain point where one has to be reasonable, particularly when the person in question was so forward thinking to begin with.

Space that was used as valuable back of the house and about 1/3 of an existing attraction cannot be considered - under any definition of the word - "unused."

Plus, there was no need to "lose" any of that space. There are two entirely flat, paved over parking lots: one to the immediate west of Critter Country in Disneyland and one to the immediate west of Paradise Pier in California Adventure. Either could have been used for Star Wars Land. Why did they have to go knocking down not even remotely unused acreage when they truly did have entirely unused acreage about 1000 feet away?

OK, so for all of you DL fanatics, please explain exactly WHY SWL does not belong. And no stupid platitudes of - if I have to ask I just don't get it. I do get it, and have been going to Disney parks a lot longer than most people here. If SWL doesn't belong, then why does Tomorrowland? Why does Critter Country? Why does New Orleans Square?

Other people are talking about the theming thing. But from a land usage standpoint, it is piisss-poor masterplanning.

 

[AEfx]

Walt would never have touched it.

Bantha poodoo.

Nothing would be stuck in the 1965 at Disneyland had he lived. He was all about new new. Not running a museum.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

Says the person who has posted 4,000+ messages on a website dedicated to theme parks

In all seriousness though, I think it mostly comes down to a difference of philosophy with regard to the inclusion of single IP lands into a park made up of lands with more broad and encompassing themes. Some disagree with Star Wars going into Disneyland and you're not one of them. That's ok. What I am having a hard time comprehending is why someone would bother to solicit the opinions of others only to explain to them why those opinions are wrong when they don't align with theirs, even going as far as referring to them as naysayers. But what the heck do I know, I spend most of my money and free time following some hippie band all over the country and visiting theme parks, so I'm willing to concede that I may be a little "off"

Good point. I really wasn't trying to say that their opinions are wrong, and I apologize if my postings came off that way, but mostly why are they so vociferous in their dislike. Yes, I get that it was Walt's park, but he was always about the new and immersive experiences. When you visit Frontierland, you are in the old west. Main Street and you are back in time. Well, when you step into SWL you are visiting another planet, and from everything we've seen and heard, it will be extremely immersive allowing people to explore the area instead of just walking through it. I guess that is mostly why I don't understand the extreme attitudes. It appears that they are doing it the way Disney used to do it.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

I actually take some issue with this...

Disneyland isn't just "a theme park." It is the theme park. It invented and pioneered the entire genre. It was the park that created, through trial and error, the most successful theme park design ever. Even 61 years later, Disney is opening parks in the tradition of Disneyland.

It's the result of thousands of cast members and Imagineers putting on the longest running show I'm aware of.

It's an American Classic that means something to tens of millions of people (including me).

It's also being upended by Rey and Finn from 2015. 61 years of illustrious history ignored for the latest franchise.

So you have to understand the intense feelings people have for Disneyland. It's special.

My point was that it isn't a life or death situation. It isn't a new born baby. In other words, there are more important things in life than a theme park that should get our attention. I certainly understand it, but what most people don't seem to get is that Walt was always changing the park as well, and if he gone on for 20 years or more, I doubt a lot of what you see in DL now would even be there.

 

[asianway]

You know they did shorten the jungle river for Indy right?

In your travels on the interwebz, have you seen anyone overlay the SWL footprint onto the Discovery Bay plan? Did DB shorten the river? Or go farther back taking the parade building?

thanks

 

[FigmentJedi]

If the new show experience on the backside of the River's good, I can accept the sacrifice. Moreso if the rumors that the railroad is getting a Nature's Wonderland homage are legit.